CASE NUMBER: 11/2018 DATE OF HEARING: 13 JUNE 2018 JUDGMENT RELEASE DATE: 28 JUNE 2018 JACOBSZ COMPLAINANT vs M-NET RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL: PROF HENNING VILJOEN (CHAIRPERSON) MS NOKUBONGA FAKUDE MR EDWIN NAIDU MS GIUSEPPINA HARPER (CO-OPTED) FOR THE COMPLAINT: Mr Duane Jacobsz in person. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Attorneys Ms Okyerebea Ampofo-Anti and Dr Dario Milo of Webber Wentzel Attorneys accompanied by Mr Wynand Grobler, Executive Producer and Ms Chwayrtisa Futshane, Supervising Producer of Carte Blanche. _________________________________________________________________________________ Complaint that broadcast on Carte Blanche of a controversial issue of public importance, namely captive bred lions, was one sided and amounted to a ”woeful condemnation of the CBL farming industry in SA”- Complainant expecting of Tribunal to understand that animal rights movement is detrimental to nature conservation - Tribunal not authorised to consider merits or demerits of viewpoints - sole task of Tribunal is to decide whether reasonable effort was made to present opposing points of view on a controversial issue of public importance - after considering all aspects of the broadcast, the Tribunal concluded that clause 28.3 of the Code was not contravened and complaint accordingly not upheld - Jacobsz vs M-Net, Case No: 11/2018 (BCCSA). ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The Tribunal considered a complaint that the broadcast on Carte Blanche of a controversial issue of public importance, namely captive bred lions, was one sided and 1 amounted to a ”woeful condemnation of the CBL farming industry in SA”. According to written argument by the Complainant he expected of the Tribunal to understand that the animal rights movement is detrimental to nature conservation in SA. The Tribunal is not authorised to consider the merits or demerits of viewpoints, but has the sole task of deciding whether a reasonable effort had been made by the producer to present opposing points of view on a contraversial issue of public importance. This should be judged in the context of the freedom of expression of the Broadcaster which includes a free discretion to edit a programme. The Tribunal also affirmed the principle that a presenter of a programme may express his/her own view on a matter. After considering all aspects of the broadcast, the Tribunal concluded that clause 28.3 of the Code was not contravened and the complaint was not upheld. _________________________________________________________________________ _ JUDGMENT HP VILJOEN [1] The Registrar received a complaint against an insert which formed part of the regular Carte Blanche programme on 8 April 2018 in which the topic was the hunting of captive bred lions and the trade in their body parts, a topic which clearly tends to stir the viewers’ emotions. [2] The complaint reads as follows: “RE: Complaint regarding agenda driven bias by Carte Blanche in the Captive Bred Lion issue, as per the inset "Cash before Conservation", Directed by Joy Summers and presented by Derek Watts, broadcast 8th of April 2018. As a qualified, career Nature Conservationist (Game Ranger), and Field Ecologist with more than two decades experience at the coal face of Conservation in Southern Africa, I am always very eager to follow developments in my field of expertise. It was for this reason that I tuned in to Carte Blanche on the evening of the 8th of April 2018, as it was actively publicized that some answers as to the questions surrounding Captive Bred Lions (CBL) would be forthcoming. I include the segment for your perusal: https://carteblanche.dstv.com/cash-before-conservation/ As can be seen, it is a woeful condemnation of the CBL farming industry in SA. I was very disappointed to see how far off the path the CBL issue has moved away from Nature Conservation goals, as it was represented in this segment by Carte Blanche. However, as my week progressed, I came upon the full video interview of Mr. Richard York, of PHASA, as he was interviewed by Mr. Derek Watts of Carte Blanche. I include the segment for your perusal: https://vimeo.com/264208785 2 It is clearly obvious that there are immense differences in what was said by Mr. York, and what was represented in the edited version by Carte Blanche, that was broadcasted for public consumption. Not only that, Mr. Watt's questioning was one-sided, and Mr. York was often not allowed to conclude sentences, or formulate scenarios. Some very objective commentary by Richard York was deliberately edited out. In one specific instance, Mr. Watts shuts Mr. York up, when he starts talking about the fact that the "Born-Free Foundation" is contributing virtually zero to the conservation efforts of Lion in South Africa, and that PHASA and SAPA are doing far more, by saying, "This is not about "Born -Free"...". When, in reality, it is all about "Born-Free", as they announced their renewed campaign against CBL farming and utilisation on the 20th of March 2018. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-03-20-born-free-foundation-sa-support-for-lion- bones-trade-is-damaging-its-image/ Is it pure coincidence that the airing of this segment coincides with the culmination of the 'Born- Free' campaign? How is this fair and objective journalism? Some very objective commentary by Richard York was deliberately edited out. Watts immediately stopped all fair inquiry as to Born-Free's contribution to Lion Conservation. The positives alluded to by York was removed from the final edit. How can we be expected to believe that no financial benefits came to Carte Blanche from Born- Free in the airing of this segment? Interestingly, PHASA conducted a poll on their Facebook page the day before the airing of this episode, and the bias and prejudice was anticipated: I am not a CBL hunting advocate, but I do see a serious role for CBL in Conservation, as it has been proven effective by scientific studies, and the evidence is conclusive, in the reality, that SA has the biggest, stable "wild" Lion population in Africa. To me it is now quite obvious that the Born-Free agenda was pushed in the Carte Blanche segment. "Born-Free" is simply milking this issue for donations. CBL is still intrinsically protected by our constitution. I therefore call on the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's wise council in addressing this matter further. I appreciate your time and service.” [3] The Broadcaster responded as follows: 1. Introduction 3 1.1 This is a response to a complaint submitted by Mr Duane Jacobsz ("the complainant") in relation to an insert that aired on Carte Blanche on 8 April 2018 ("the insert"). 1.2 The insert addressed the issue of captive lion breeding in South Africa. It featured excerpts from an interview with Mr Richard York ("Mr York") of the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa ("PHASA"). The interview was conducted by Mr Derek Watts ("Mr Watts") of Carte Blanche. 1.3 PHASA published a more comprehensive version of the interview on Vimeo the day after the insert was broadcast. Carte Blanche has also published a version of the full interview on its website. 1.4 The complaint, in essence, appears to be that the manner in which the interview was edited and incorporated in the insert did not provide a fair representation of what was said by Mr York during the full interview. 1.5 The complainant also raises issues regarding the manner in which the interview was conducted, which he alleges was biased. 1.6 Finally the complainant suggests that Carte Blanche may be acting in concert with the Born Free Foundation and that Carte Blanche may have benefited financially from preparing the insert in a biased manner. This aspect of the complaint essentially amounts to an allegation that Carte Blanche was paid by the Born Free Foundation to produce a biased insert. The allegation is clearly baseless and the complainant offers no support for it beyond conjecture. Carte Blanche takes exception to this scurrilous allegation and does not deem it necessary to respond to it save to place on record that it is denied. 1.7 The complainant has not indicated which aspect of the Code of Conduct for Subscription Broadcasting Service Licensees ("the Code") he alleges has been breached. However, the BCCSA has requested that the respondent address the issue of balance, which the respondent understands to mean that the complaint will be considered as a complaint in relation to a possible breach of clause 28.3 of the Code. 1.8 Clause 28.3 provides that when presenting a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed, a broadcaster must make reasonable efforts to present opposing points of view and to ensure that persons whose views are criticised are given a right of reply. 1.9 We set out below what we submit is the correct approach to clause 28 of the Code and thereafter we address each of the aspects of the complaint. 2. The correct approach to section 28 of the Code 2.1 Clause 28.2 of the Code authorises broadcasters to broadcast comment and criticism of any actions or events of public importance provided that such comment is an honest expression of opinion which appears clearly to be comment and is based on facts truly stated or fairly indicated. 2.2 Clause 28. 3provides that when presenting a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed, a broadcaster must make reasonable efforts to present opposing points of view and to ensure that persons whose views are criticised are given a right of reply. 4 2.3 The BCCSA held in Grove v E-TV1 that the comment clause of the Code protects freedom of expression and as such it will only rule that that the Code has been violated in relation to comments where it is clear that the comments were unfair.